10
BIOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY

Dr. Littlepage is a Biological Oceanographer and Associate
Professor at the University of Victoria. He made a verbal
presentation at one of the public forums arranged by the Liquid
wasted Management Plan Commissioner as part of the waste
management plan process. This was recorded at the time by radio
station CKDA. Subsequently, Dr. Littlepage edited his
presentation to make it suitable for reading. His knowledge is
so germane and his presentation so apt for our purpose that it is
included below as a separate chapter.

The following presentation made by Professor Jack Littlepage given on
Oct.4th.'89 at the open house organized by the Waste Management Plan
Commissioner.

I am fortunate enough to have lived on the Victoria seashore for
twenty-five years. I am keenly aware of the changes which have taken
place during this period and of the necessity to preserve the marine
environment and to keep it as pristine as possible. I also have a
Ph.D. in the field of biological oceanography and I have had about
twenty-five years professional experience with local oceanography.

I was a consultant with the Capital Regional District on the
initial impact statements for the Macauley Point outfall, the
Clover Point outfall, the Finnerty Cove outfall and others. All
of the lab work in the initial program development and all the
initial outfall reports were done in my laboratory. I have
viewed the operation of the Victoria outfalls from the air, from
surface research vessels, from submersibles and by scuba diving.
I am the author or co-author of more than thirty environmental
reports to government and industry. Twenty-three of these deal
with sewage disposal in the Victoria region.

Victoria has a pollution problem. It has a serious pollution
problem. All one has to do is to walk along the beaches of
Victoria to be aware of this. None of this pollution is due to
the Clover Point or Macauley Point outfalls; not the polluted
beaches, not the "no-swimming" areas, not the high beach coliform
counts.

The Victoria sewage system discharges into a very dynamic system.
There are strong tidal currents. A well established estuarine
circulation pattern results in a net seaward movement of the surface
water and a "tidal pump" ensures deep water circulation over the sill
between Juan de Fuca Straight and Haro Straight. Because of local
submarine topography we can discharge effluent relatively deeply in the
water column where these dynamic
processes ensure dispersion, dilution and assimilation of the
discharge.

It is nearly impossible to detect the surface presence of the
discharge, even immediately above the outfall. Very sensitive
and precise chemical analyses were unable to detect any changes
in salinity, plant nutrients or phytoplankton growth attributable
to the outfalls. There is no evidence of environmental
degradation to either the water, the bottom or the beach which
can be traced to these outfalls. Gross floatable solids, which
were once traceable to the outfalls are now removed prior to discharge.
Gulls are often observed over the outfall and a study of this problem
indicated that the gulls are gathering drops of fat which have
congealed in the cold sea water and float to the surface after
discharge. There was no evidence that they were feeding on any fecal
matter.

Comments have been raised about what I call the pseudo-problem of
viruses and bacteria in the effluent. Several recent
publications have demonstrated that bacteria and viruses are
ubiquitous and abundant in the ocean. There are millions of
these per millilitre in all the oceans of the world. If they can
live there, they are there now. If they are not there now, it
is because they cannot live in the ocean. The common mammalian
pathogens simply cannot live in the low temperature and high
salinity environment of the ocean for any length of time.

I do not intend to review the more than a thousand pages of
documentation from 1970 to the present. All I am going to say is
that these are available for examination and demonstrate no
environmental damage as a consequence of these two outfalls. I
only ask that the Commission review these reports very carefully
before recommending the spending of several millions of dollars
on a project which is not going to improve our environment. This
is a classic case of 'if it ain't broken, don't fix it'.

What about global consequences of untreated marine discharge? I would
like to refer to a recent book by the well-known marine engineer,
Willard Bascom. He has had a long and colourful career in deep sea
drilling (Mohole project), coastal morphology, wave and beach
interactions and coastal pollution. He was head of the Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) for twelve years,
1973 to 1985. The current SCCWRP budget is approximately one half a
million dollars annually and they manage the coastal marine environment
from Los Angeles to the Mexican border.

In his 1988 book "The Crest of the Wave" Bascom describes what
heconsiders to be "Environmental Myth Number One" - that is that
ordinary human sewage is harmful to animals in an open coastal
environment. In addition to data from SCCWRP Bascom cites Dr.John
Isaacs, Director of the Institute of Marine Resources, Scripps
Institute of Oceanography, as being incensed by regulations that
attempted to control the discharge of human waste into the ocean.
Issacs' opinion was that "the return of organic waste and plant
nutrients, resulting from the most natural of acts is most probably
beneficial" (to the sea). "The benefits of putting the same material
on land is clear to any farmer but the advantages to the sea are not so
easily appreciated. The sea is STARVED for basic plant nutrients, and
it is a mystery to me why anyone should be concerned with their
introduction into coastal seas in any quantity we can generate in the
foreseeable future".

Dr. Alan Mearns and Jack Word analyzed results from the
Southern California study and published data indicating that
California's ocean outfalls increased the amount of sea life in
direct proportion to the amount of solids released. The release
of solids in Santa Monica bay, for example, increased the total
amount of fish and other sea life by 5,600 tons.

In July, 1986, a symposium was held at the University of Rhode Island
on the future of the world's oceans. The panelists were Dr.John
Guillard, Imperial College of London, an expert in
fisheries, Dr. Kenji Okamura, Japanese Ministry of science, Dr.
Dixy Lee Ray, Assistant Secretary for the US Bureau of Oceans,
Dr. John Knaus, Dean of the School of Oceanography, Oregon State
University and ex-chairman of the National Advisory Committee of Oceans
and Atmosphere, Willard Bascom, Head of SCCWRP and several others.
Bascom states "To the surprise of the three hundred people present,
plus television and sponsors, this group was of the unanimous opinion
that ocean pollution was pretty much a myth". Dean Knaus pointed out
"that the environmental movement, in order to make its point, has
overstated its case."

Therefore evidence based on local data, California data, and
world-wide experience indicates that there is no advantage, and
perhaps a disadvantage, to secondary treatment given the
conditions which exist off Victoria. I don't ask that you
believe me, only that you look at the data. I suggest that you
consider the following questions before making a recommendation.

1. What are you going to do with 98%+ of sewage which
is water, containing high levels of bacteria and viruses, that is
better than what we do now?

2. What are you going to do with the very large amounts of
sludge which results from treatment? This material may contain
unacceptable levels of metals or organic toxins, for treatment
does not remove these substances, it concentrates them.

3. How are you going to explain the degradation of the shoreline
environment resulting from the construction of a treatment
facility and the inevitable air and visual pollution which
accompanies such projects.

4. And finally what are you going to tell the taxpayers, who,
after spending many millions of dollars still find polluted
beaches and posted " no-swimming" areas?)

As an alternative to spending these dollars to alleviate a
non-problem, I would like to suggest you consider the following
possibilities.

2. Continue the consolidation of illegal, inappropriate short
sewage outfalls that exist in the Capital Regional District and
connect these to the primary trunk system.

3. Initiate an active program to correct sanitary and storm
drain inter-connections. Visible beach pollution as well a high
coliform counts are most noticeable after periods of rainfall
when the storm drains deliver large amounts of materials to the
beaches.

4. When connections to trunk sewers are impossible and septic
tanks are permitted, initiate a licensing program to ensure
proper septic tank pumping and maintenance. In some areas
septic tanks are a viable option to trunk sewer connections, but
only with obligatory maintenance programs.

5. Finally, and most importantly, reinstate a quality monitoring
program to document environmental conditions. These data should be
made available to the public and an annual summary report written in a
popular style should be sent to all CRD households.

In the event that a problem is detected it should be immediately
addressed and solved within the content of the marine discharge
program. It is not necessary to consider the current program as "fixed
in stone" but neither is it necessary to abandon the entire program
when a relatively minor engineering or management change can ensure
successful operation of the outfalls long into the future.

Instead of flocking like sheep to spend our money, simply because
"everyone else is treating sewage", which by the way is not true, we
should be promoting our system as the most efficient and
environmentally sound system in North America. What other system can
you point to which has no appreciable residue, no air or water
pollution, requires a minimum of shoreline, increases
marine productivity and places a minimum burden on the taxpayer.

In conclusion, there is no evidence for the requirement for a
sewage treatment facility. It will not solve the pollution
problem in Victoria and it may be environmentally irresponsible.

AN IMPORTANT NOTE

The 1986 Rhode Island symposium stated that the restricted
inshore marine environment such as (Puget Sound) should not
receive industrial and domestic discharges and should be
carefully managed. I agree completely with this statement. The
comments made in this presentation apply ONLY to the existing
Clover Point and Macauley Point outfalls. It must NOT be
construed as a general recommendation for marine discharge. This can
only be determined on a site-specific basis depending on the receiving
environment and the nature of the discharge. Discharge of sewage into
fresh water is probably never environmentally acceptable.

Reference: Bascom, Willard. 1988 The Crest of the Wave. Harper and
Row, publishers.